Originally Posted By woody I felt that IOA filled a hole in the Orlando market that WDW left. IOA presented thrill rides with Disney comparable theming. It was quite an impressive park, yet not as successful as predicted. Disney is still beating IOA by a huge margin and they changed their game to compete with IOA despite the fact that I don't think IOA is willing the battle. IOA posed some threat to WDW and we the laypeople don't see it. As a theme park fan, I think IOA is a very good park, but the lack of new attractions is making it less competitive with Disney. On the other hand, Disney's blunders like DCA and AK are getting better. I think it might take ten more years to improve the parks, but it will definitely get there. Universal's IOA and Studios haven't done much lately and that's too bad because there's a lot of potential there. I love the resort complex too. The resort is actually "hip and edgy". It is a true alternative to Disney's boring status quo.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj Universal spent way too much on Universal Florida and IOA. They bought property that was very expensive near downtown Orlando, and then ended up paying too much for outside contractors to do the design work on the park. None of the companies that have owned Universal over the years have ever really broken out the specific financials for their theme parks unit, but based on the obvious lack of reinvestment in those assets, it is apparent that there isn't a whole lot of operating profit to reinvest.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>I think that disney would be in real trouble right now if they would have built a 1.5 billion dollar them park across the esplenade.<< A good point. If the more expensive park had failed to make its ROI, then we would have seen cutbacks across all of DLR. I expect that DCA will grow and improve slowly over the years. It will eventually expand into the parking lot. Hopefully some lands will get a much needed makeover.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>Are you implying, therefore, that a dud like DCA was unavoidable because Anaheim isn't Orlando?<< It is a different market, with a different customer base and demographic.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>Also in 1955, there was no market for theme parks, because Walt Disney hadn't invented it yet. You can be sure, though, that Walt Disney was a lot more business oriented than most people give him credit for. He picked a site south of L.A. where land was relatively inexpensive, within a day trip for the dense Southern California population, and tapping into the exploding Baby Boom. Disneyland wasn't just a whim, it was a business decision made on calculate research of a new a burgeoning market of families with young children. Don't kid yourself to think that "Walt's Folly" was ever just a shot in the dark.<< So true. While Walt was being the visionary, Roy was crunching the numbers. Its also important to remember that DL's business model has changed since 1955. Back then you visited usually 1 day at time, and you paid piecemeal for each attraction. Now multiday visits are common, no more coupon books and throw in the AP's. It is now a different model. Its also different from WDW's model in that DLR is more reliant on thriftier day tripping AP's while WDW caters more to out of towners on their annual vacation. They will always be very different.
Originally Posted By Brick-N-Mortar Speedygenie, thank you for the timeline, it clarified much for me. I too like DCA and look forward to its continued evolution.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>I agree we are not competing with WDW, but since the majority of the country choses to vacation at WDW over DL, the company choses to spend more money out there. If we pulled more numbers, they might blow more money over here in DL.<< Again, that assumes that the west coast has the demographics to support a WDW like resort. It would basically have o draw its custtomers from: LA Bay Area Portland Seattle Las Vegas Phoenix/Tucson Salt Lake City Where WDW draws upon: NY Boston (and NE in eneral) Philly Pittsburgh DC Baltimore Cleveland Cinci Detroit Chicago St Louis Dallas Houston Atlanta And most of the Midwest: KC, Denver, etc. There is no comparison in market size, the market for WDW is 3 times a big. One might argue that a SoCal WDW could draw people from the midwest, but why bother? They are already going to WDW.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>My belief is that DCA and the entire resort expansion was built modestly to offset financial risk and to build a foundation for future growth.<< A very good guess, IMO. Especially when WDW was having trouble attracting the number of guests they had been planning for.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>The Eisner era was never about originality when creating Disney's new theme parks or attractions.<< Aw, c'mon. What about Splash Mtn and Indy? They did some things right. Perhaps Eisners biggest blunder was buying ABC.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "Where is it written that the theme park market in Southern California is saturated?" Surely you don't think that there's a legitimate need for another theme park in Southern California, do you? All you have to do is look at growth in that market over the past ten years to see that business has been either down, flat or up ever so slightly. Use some common sense analysis and you'll see that growth has stagnated in the Southern California theme park business. This isn't nuclear science. The trend isn't isolated to Southern California, either. Universal had a horrible year. Have you not heard about the tempest over at Six Flags and the announcement that Paramount is selling its parks? Why do you think that Disney and other theme park operators are so anxious to develop in new foriegn markets?
Originally Posted By mickey42397 Okay, as many times as I have been to Islands of Adventure I totally forgot about the Jurassic Park area because other than the ride itself, there is really nothing to it. At least AK's Dinoland leaves a lasting impression. I stand corrected though, both Do have a dino area. Add one more flume ride to the list, so that is 3 flume rides and one rapids for IOA. I like the park, it is well themed, especially the Seuss Landing, but it still doesn't hold any "magic". If Disney would put half as many attractions at AK it would do so much better. I used to work at AK in Kilimanjaro Safaris and I would have to say that out of all of the complaints I heard from guests, the biggest two were not enough to do in the park and too hot. AK definitely feels hotter than the other parks and no amount of fans and mist is going to correct that. It needs more shade and less distance between air conditioned attractions.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> If we pulled more numbers, they might blow more money over here in DL. << DLR pulled plenty of "numbers" in 2005, outpacing their most optimistic projections. 2006 looks to be a solid yeat also. Some part of this is undoubtedly due to the 50th celebration, but when you look at what's special and different about this promotion, the ingredients are actually pretty thin - the fireworks and a couple of new parades, with a few modest new attractions. It's been said that fireworks and parades have always been a DL staple, and new attractions aren't something specific to the anniversary. They even got a surprising amount of mileage from simply re-opening space mountain - a thirty year old attraction. The next "biggie" is the re-opening of the subs with a new overlay, followed by new monorail trains to replace the old ones. So they're not really doing anything remarkably different, just more of the same. And it's working. What this shows is that DLR continues to hold a special place in the hearts of minds of the consumers. It's perceived as different and unique from other area parks (KBF, USH, MM) and can pull visitors from much farther away. Of course much of the credit for this 'unique positioning' in the marketplace goes to walt himself, as well as a top-notch job of branding that was done in earlier eras. This won't last forever. The current management team needs to continue the tradition of excellence and quality. The past two years has shown them to be capable and competent in returning DL to it's former glory, but the jury's still out on whether they can "grow" the brand. DCA will be their proving ground. I don't believe the problem is that socal cannot sustain a two or even three park disney resort. In fact the recent numbers have shown otherwise. The challenge for disney is to do more than just restore previous luster, but to actually enhance and build on what's already been done, and to not diminish the brand in the process. That takes imagination and talent - and money. They have to. DLR can either be the jewel in the disney theme park crown, or just another declining asset. But I don't believe that the problem is a lack of market for disneyland. Fifty years of track-record shows there's a big one. As disney continues to expand globally, it's becoming more apparant that anaheim and orlando is "it" for the US - it's unlikely they would build another park in a new US location outside of these two cities. So it's in their own best interests to keep both properties vital and expanding. Now back to the rumors - I agree with DB that we'll be seeing the 'placemaking' project for the entrance area starting as soon as september of this year, just six months away. But we're not hearing much about what it's going to be. I recall some loose talk about continuing the theme of GRR around and into 'condor flats', but rocks and trees aren't normally associated with aviation and runways, so perhaps the 'high desert airfield' is on the way out. But what about the entrance area? Strong rumors about removing the sun-cap and replacing it with a small structure for 'golden dreams' (I don't know how much smaller they can get from the existing structure). They'd still need a 'wienie' as a centerpiece. We've also heard about removing the 'golden gate bridge', but there would still need to be some sort of bridge for the monorail track. It seems like we should be hearing some more definitive rumors about their intentions for this area very soon.
Originally Posted By woody >>I think that disney would be in real trouble right now if they would have built a 1.5 billion dollar them park across the esplenade.<< >A good point. If the more expensive park had failed to make its ROI, then we would have seen cutbacks across all of DLR.<< They spent 1.5 Billion for the entire resort. Do you really think the Resort broke even in its first year? There is no way to know how well DCA would have done if they spent 1.5 Billion on DCA alone. There are studies that show theme park attendance is based on capacity. If 1.5 Billion paid for a larger park with large capacity E-Ticket rides, I predict DCA would break even based on ride capacity alone. Obviously, DCA is doing fine now with its current slate of attractions even without being advertised as a separate park. It is like they given up on DCA without giving up on it. DCA is doing okay from overflow and free admission. Multi-park tickets work. Having bigger crowd capacity between the two parks work. By the end of this decade, Disney would have spent 1.5 Billion on DCA getting it up to speed. I wonder why? Wouldn't it be smarter to leave things alone with just relying on overflow attendance? Maybe they realize this doesn't work either.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< "This is strange. Does Disney have unlimited funds to build temporary buildings? Why didn't they build a pernament parade building in the correct location?" >>> Keep in mind one of the points from the PowerPoint deck that Darkbeer has posted: build to minimize up-front costs, not long-term costs. During any given year, it's always going to be cheaper to build a temporary building than a permanent one.
Originally Posted By Westsider Also realize the executives that shepherded DCA from sketchpad to reality were a brand new breed of Disney execs, especially for Anaheim. Previous to Pressler, they were not people who worked their way up the ranks of Disneyland over decades like previous execs. Lindquist, Nunis, Dominguez, Cora all worked their way up and were dedicated to Disneyland's ideals and purpose. Pressler had only been at Disney for a couple of years when he landed in Disneyland's presidents office. He knew that if DCA actually worked out, he could play it into a bigger role at Disney. He also knew, that if it didn't work, he could easily jump ship to another senior exec spot at any other company. Simply put, Pressler and everyone he brought along with him; Harriss, Yeargin, Braverman, etc. were in it for the short term. There was no emotional attachment to the Anaheim property for them, and they had no allegiance to Disneyland's future. And that was a huge sea change for Disneyland executives compared to every other person that inhabited the executive suites in from 1955 to 1995. And sure enough, DCA bombed and is now saddled with all sorts of major flaws inherent to it's daily operation. And where are those executives that made those decisions? They are all working for other companies, most of them following Pressler to The Gap to recreate the era they lived out at Disneyland. At least for now, as The Gap continues it's slide of worsening sales and weakened market share. So, knowing all of that, why would you expect them to pour money into DCA that they didn't have to? Pressler and his team had absolutely no motivation to make DCA work properly in the long term. If it weren't for the fact that I find Pressler and Harriss so morally corrupt, I almost can't blame them for the decisions they made regarding DCA from 1996 to 2003.
Originally Posted By Westsider "Previous to Pressler, they were not people who worked their way up the ranks of Disneyland over decades like previous execs. Lindquist, Nunis, Dominguez, Cora all worked their way up and were dedicated to Disneyland's ideals and purpose." That paragraph should read; "Pressler and Harriss were not people who worked their way up the ranks of Disneyland over the decades like previous execs. Lindquist, Nunis, Dominguez, Cora all worked their way up and were dedicated to Disneyland's ideals and purpose." When do we get an edit feature on this board again?
Originally Posted By woody >>Keep in mind one of the points from the PowerPoint deck that Darkbeer has posted: build to minimize up-front costs, not long-term costs. During any given year, it's always going to be cheaper to build a temporary building than a permanent one.<< Of course. I do know that costs are itemized each fiscal year. Spending more money up-front is actually a bad idea based on the tax laws. However, building a temporary building in the correct location is cheaper than building it in the wrong location. There is no need to relocate it in the future. That's why the spending on DCA is penny-wise, pound-foolish. In total nominal costs, DCA will cost quite a bit of money. There is no savings from the cheap design decisions.
Originally Posted By Park Hopper Hans, I am not interested in debating the subject of So Cal theme park saturation with you at this time. I simply want to know where the idea came from. Did some accredited entertainment professional reach this conclusion? Or did you piece this concept together on your own? From your response I would guess the latter.
Originally Posted By speedygenie if you build it , they will come. actually .. if you SPEND it, i think they will come. The market is not saturated in CA. Maybe if you're talkin about entertainment shoping centers, ie the block, spectrum, SCP, etc then ya.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< It still amazes me how WDSP is not badmouthed MORE than DCA. DCA ia 10 times the park of WDSP. >>> I think that the difference is that few people even within TWDC thought that WDSP was going to be an unqualified success. But, it's clear from many different sources that there were a great many within TDA and TWDC that had drunk the DCA Kool-Aid and fully expected to "hit it out of the park" upon opening. Even today, there appears to be a fanbase for DCA that simply can't seem to come to terms with the fact that it is an underperforming park. Actually, for some, it's most than just being unable to come to terms with (that is, to understand why), but it apparently goes as deep as some people simply not believing that there are actually any attendance or financial problems at DCA, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. It's for this reason that DCA is much more frequently the topic of debate in these parts than is WDSP.
